Or that slaves built the pyramids, or a whole bunch of others. Seriously the list could be 50 items long and still miss a few big ones.

C'mon, a well kept and provided for worker that has to build a pyramid is still a slave as long as the person paying him for it will be buried under it. Especially if they don't have an option for the job.

Or that slaves built the pyramids, or a whole bunch of others. Seriously the list could be 50 items long and still miss a few big ones.

C'mon, a well kept and provided for worker that has to build a pyramid is still a slave as long as the person paying him for it will be buried under it. Especially if they don't have an option for the job.

Apparently recent archaeological digs have found a lot of communities of craftsman and builders who were having a good wages around the Pyramid. Some have suggested that creation of the pyramids were actually a community effort, either religious or a matter of Empire Pride.

FTA:Hint hint, fantasy writers. Eventually, use of the singular informal became synonymous with insult; only a few groups of people, like Quakers, continued to use it for religious or literary purposes.

Well. Quakers, and fantasy writers, right? I mean, unless you are just annoyed by something you are making up. Apparently, this usage is NOT dead. It just bugs you.

I like misconception articles, but this one seemed mostly to be saying "its a misconception because I said it was" (Ie.. people werent shorter that much shorter in the past and its just in our head that the beds were smaller) I googled, no supporting data for this statement seems to exist.

Of course, I didnt look at every result on the internet, so he MIGHT have a point. it would be nice if he shared why he thougt that though. I am intrigued..

/ and there has to be penis joke in there about french feet being bigger than british feet, but im not touching it with a 10 french foot pole.

Well, actually it is common for people to assume people in the past were shorter than we are. Of course, that's partly true, they were. The average height for an American man 200 years ago was shorter than it is now. In his day Thomas Jefferson at 6'2" was far more unusual than a man of the same height is today. Now where you get into misconceptions is how much shorter people were. If you look at the old beds, you'd figure people were quite a bit shorter than they actually were. This based on assuming they'd like as much extra length in a bed as we do, and also that they slept as we do. Neither of which was necessarily the case. Also people who visit Europe and see the old buildings, and I'm talking 400 or more years, will see the doorways are a lot smaller than doorways are now. Now the size of the doorways was less of a problem for Europeans back then because they were smaller, but not so small they could fit through a 5' tall door without ducking down. What people often miss, is that if you look in through the windows, you'll notice the ceiling isn't much if any lower than it is in a modern place. Reason for the small doorway is that in winter it would help keep your place warm. This particularly being the case for those places where there were no door jams and in order for the door to swing open easily you had to have a little bit of a gap between the door and the stone floor/front step. In winter cold air would just flow in through that gap at the bottom. And also as there were gaps along the sides and top, hot air would flow out. And even in places with door jams, the fit of the doors wasn't what we're used to, and as anyone who has lived in a house with an older door with no weather stripping can attest even recently built houses can have lot of cold air get through the front door.

I sound fat:I like misconception articles, but this one seemed mostly to be saying "its a misconception because I said it was" (Ie.. people werent shorter that much shorter in the past and its just in our head that the beds were smaller) I googled, no supporting data for this statement seems to exist.

Of course, I didnt look at every result on the internet, so he MIGHT have a point. it would be nice if he shared why he thougt that though. I am intrigued..

/ and there has to be penis joke in there about french feet being bigger than british feet, but im not touching it with a 10 french foot pole.

i too was expecting to see some stats about skeletons from the era, but no. no bones. i would like to have seen more about this. people may have been tall in the day due to clean air, water, plenty of exercise and unprocessed whole foods. or they may have been shorter because their diets were limited to pretty much what was available locally, and may have been slight malnourished because of it.

KrispyKritter:I sound fat: I like misconception articles, but this one seemed mostly to be saying "its a misconception because I said it was" (Ie.. people werent shorter that much shorter in the past and its just in our head that the beds were smaller) I googled, no supporting data for this statement seems to exist.

Of course, I didnt look at every result on the internet, so he MIGHT have a point. it would be nice if he shared why he thougt that though. I am intrigued..

/ and there has to be penis joke in there about french feet being bigger than british feet, but im not touching it with a 10 french foot pole.

i too was expecting to see some stats about skeletons from the era, but no. no bones. i would like to have seen more about this. people may have been tall in the day due to clean air, water, plenty of exercise and unprocessed whole foods. or they may have been shorter because their diets were limited to pretty much what was available locally, and may have been slight malnourished because of it.

There's no reason for the wealthy or even the middle classes to have been malnourished at most points in history. Hell, most Native Americans were living on about 2500 calories a day when Columbus landed.

Now, if you were a European/Asian peasant, you were probably screwed nutrition-wise. But anyone who wasn't at the bottom of a feudal totem pole was probably as tall and as healthy (barring plagues, death in infancy, and accidents) as people are today.

Or that slaves built the pyramids, or a whole bunch of others. Seriously the list could be 50 items long and still miss a few big ones.

Yup. The pyramids were built by paid laborers, and there were extensive medical facilities for the workers to be treated at in the event of an accident. If the worker could be repaired and sent back to work, so much the better.

I think it even says that in the Jewish version of the old testament, where it also says that the Jews were not, in fact, enslaved by Egypt. They were originally an elite fighting force on the borders of egypt, but the Egyptian Pharaoh got nervous over their ability and forced them to become laborers in construction in temples or some such projects. After which the Israelites said "fark this" and left.

KrispyKritter:they may have been shorter because their diets were limited to pretty much what was available locally,

People were shorter due to that for a long time. And indeed increase in height owing to improved nutrition is something that has been witnessed in several parts of the world just over the last several decades. As for how much shorter people were? Well, it comes down to where and when you want to look. Two hundred years ago the average American man was somewhere between 5'6" and 5'7". At the same time, the average Englishman was actually a touch taller, keep in mind you had a lot of French and others in the US and they were shorter on average than the English so they'd bring down the average for all American men. Now if you want to look at heights across Europe, it does depend on when and where and averages of ethnic groups can be a bit deceiving as there could be pretty wide disparities between people from different regions and even within one region owing to whether or not they lived in a city, a small town or some peasant village. All of those things could, and did, effect things like the quality and variety of food available, the diseases one was exposed to and other things. One thing that influenced the increase in the heights of Americans was the mixing together of people from all over the place. A tall man of German background could marry a woman of English background, who while not tall by English standards, would be tall by the standards of wherever the German's background was from. And so they may end up having kids that are taller than if the German had married someone of the same background. Mind you this won't push the average height up very much very fast but over time, it will nudge things upwards.

As for the effect of nutrition and living conditions on height, an good example is North and South Korea. As far as genetics goes, a Korean is a Korean, so as far as genetics are concerned both populations have the same potential to grow. In South Korea the average man is about 5'8 1/2" and the average woman is about 5' 3 1/2", in North Korea the average man is about 5'5" and the average woman about 5' 1".

And as for how heights have changed, this picture is from 1900 and each man is within the expected height range for his place of origin, going left to right, Great Britain, United States, Australia, India, Germany, France, Austro-Hungary, Italy and Japan. If you were to take an equivalent picture now of men who are average or near average, the variation between tallest and shortest would be much smaller and also the ordering from tallest to shorter would be different. Though with the Indian you'd have to find one from the same region as the one in the picture as average heights across India vary quite a lot even today.

Smoking GNU:I think it even says that in the Jewish version of the old testament, where it also says that the Jews were not, in fact, enslaved by Egypt

Well there's that, and also the Bible mentions them having weapons. Egyptian slaves did not have weapons. They also did not have their own towns to live and work in. But as for the pyramids and other large structures, they're built with a level of precision and craft that only someone, well lots of someones, with the proper training could manage. Oh sure any group of men could be made to drag a stone, but actually cutting it and smoothing it out so the corners are a nice 90 degrees and consistent stone after stone? That takes a fair amount of skill and knowledge. And then there's all the carving of stones at temples and making round columns and so on. Working in construction drew a lot of men to it, and once they had the training, then what? Well build more big stuff. Which in turn draws in more men, so you have this supply generation after generation of men who can build whatever you want as big as you want, and also quite quickly it should be noted given the level of technology they had. And of course if you're the pharaoh, treating the people you depend on so everyone can see how awesomely fantastic you are badly would not work well. If you want a temple to some god or other and you wanted it now, well going to have to make sure everyone is very well fed, well looked after and well paid. You can tell a soldier to suck it up if his rations for a few days are a bit measly, good luck telling a stone mason that.

WhyteRaven74:Oh sure any group of men could be made to drag a stone, but actually cutting it and smoothing it out so the corners are a nice 90 degrees and consistent stone after stone? That takes a fair amount of skill and knowledge.

Eh, on the other hand, it's not particularly unheard of to have a group of slaves who were treated somewhat better than the rest of the slaves and given extra training and treatment, due to factors like their inherent display of skill/knowledge or maybe who their parents were or, for example in the case of American slaves, if their skin color was perhaps leaning towards favorable to their captors. So you take this smaller group, feed them well and give them education and a better position both literally and figuratively than their peers and voila, they'll pump out specialized craft for you. And then you have the added benefit of the imposed slave hierarchy breeding inter-resentment and strife amongst the servile population and further inhibiting the chance of a full-on cohesive rebellion.

"The notion that Revere cried out "The British are coming!" is historically false, and perpetuates anachronistic beliefs about the coherence of American identity. Depositions given by Revere suggest that he used the term "regulars" to refer to the troops headed toward Lexington, Massachusetts."

Umm, Paul Revere didn't cry out shiat. First of all, it was a covert operation; no one was yelling anything out, since at that point 20 percent of the local population was British. Revere was one of about 40 riders that night; he was one of three who were found by British troops chilling at a pub, and the only one of those three who didn't manage to escape (he gave up without a fight).

Of all the men involved in the ride, Revere was the biggest pussy out of all of them. The only reason anyone associates him with the ride is because Longfellow needed a name that was easy to rhyme.

PDXBishop:"The notion that Revere cried out "The British are coming!" is historically false, and perpetuates anachronistic beliefs about the coherence of American identity. Depositions given by Revere suggest that he used the term "regulars" to refer to the troops headed toward Lexington, Massachusetts."

Umm, Paul Revere didn't cry out shiat. First of all, it was a covert operation; no one was yelling anything out, since at that point 20 percent of the local population was British. Revere was one of about 40 riders that night; he was one of three who were found by British troops chilling at a pub, and the only one of those three who didn't manage to escape (he gave up without a fight).

Of all the men involved in the ride, Revere was the biggest pussy out of all of them. The only reason anyone associates him with the ride is because Longfellow needed a name that was easy to rhyme

He is also a Fark Legend because, on a night that would become synonymous with an urgent call to arms and a seminal moment in American history, he stopped for a beer.

wyltoknow:WhyteRaven74: Oh sure any group of men could be made to drag a stone, but actually cutting it and smoothing it out so the corners are a nice 90 degrees and consistent stone after stone? That takes a fair amount of skill and knowledge.

Eh, on the other hand, it's not particularly unheard of to have a group of slaves who were treated somewhat better than the rest of the slaves and given extra training and treatment, due to factors like their inherent display of skill/knowledge or maybe who their parents were or, for example in the case of American slaves, if their skin color was perhaps leaning towards favorable to their captors. So you take this smaller group, feed them well and give them education and a better position both literally and figuratively than their peers and voila, they'll pump out specialized craft for you. And then you have the added benefit of the imposed slave hierarchy breeding inter-resentment and strife amongst the servile population and further inhibiting the chance of a full-on cohesive rebellion.

Indeed. The Mameluks of later Egypt were officially slaves and they were also the elite and the rulers of the country. Not all slavery systems were the same and I think most Americans still look at it through the prism of our history. As for all the mentions of salting the fields, where is the dispute of that occurring? I'd be interested to read that.

PDXBishop:Of all the men involved in the ride, Revere was the biggest pussy out of all of them. The only reason anyone associates him with the ride is because Longfellow needed a name that was easy to rhyme.

He was the A-Rod of the Sons of Liberty?

/we've secretly swiched the Sons of Liberty with the Sons of Anarchy//let's see how the American Revolution would have played out

That would be a prime point to mention the whole "People thought the world was flat before Columbus!" thing

Which wasn't true. They'd known since the greeks the world was round (Hell, the Greeks figured it out by lunar eclipses! "Huh. The shadow we cast on the moon is round, so.. OH HOLY CRAP, THIS IS A SPHERE!"), and the Greek calculation of the circumfrence of the earth was remarkably close to accurate.

If I recall correctly, Columbus basically went "Nah, those greek dudes are wrong. The earth is totes smaller, and I can totally reach India if I sail west!". Thus, the reason people wouldn't fund him was less "You'll fall off the edge of the earth!" And more "Nnnnooo, you're just going to die out in the open ocean, and I'd really rather not waste my money, kthxbye." And had America not been in the way, they'd probably have been right...

Felgraf:That would be a prime point to mention the whole "People thought the world was flat before Columbus!" thing

Which wasn't true. They'd known since the greeks the world was round (Hell, the Greeks figured it out by lunar eclipses! "Huh. The shadow we cast on the moon is round, so.. OH HOLY CRAP, THIS IS A SPHERE!"), and the Greek calculation of the circumfrence of the earth was remarkably close to accurate.

If I recall correctly, Columbus basically went "Nah, those greek dudes are wrong. The earth is totes smaller, and I can totally reach India if I sail west!". Thus, the reason people wouldn't fund him was less "You'll fall off the edge of the earth!" And more "Nnnnooo, you're just going to die out in the open ocean, and I'd really rather not waste my money, kthxbye." And had America not been in the way, they'd probably have been right...

Indeed but the way it has entered popular consciousness makes a better story for some. I like the idea of trying to prove the Greek measurement wrong when, in fact, Eratosthenes was quite close.

The Amendment granting women the right to vote was passed during the administration of our first woman president, Edith Wilson. Her husband, President Woodrow Wilson, had been almost completely incapacitated by a stroke. Edith and the White House staff hid this fact from the public, and Edith took over the duties of president.

PDXBishop:since at that point 20 percent of the local population was British

Well; nearly *all* of the Colonials (I'm excluding Native Americans, free blacks, and slaves from the count) were British-- at this point in time; they still considered themselves part of the British empire. It wasn't until later that both sides realized that reconcilliation wasn't an option.

Great picture, though I think a little bit of imperial stage managing is going on there. The British guy, although clearly superior to any foreigner in any regard by simple virtue of being British, is only slightly taller on account of his hat, and that he's a fraction of a pace closer to the camera.

Or that slaves built the pyramids, or a whole bunch of others. Seriously the list could be 50 items long and still miss a few big ones.

C'mon, a well kept and provided for worker that has to build a pyramid is still a slave as long as the person paying him for it will be buried under it. Especially if they don't have an option for the job.

Apparently recent archaeological digs have found a lot of communities of craftsman and builders who were having a good wages around the Pyramid. Some have suggested that creation of the pyramids were actually a community effort, either religious or a matter of Empire Pride.